My comment is based on the fact that many countries in the UN were unwilling to do what was necessary to insure that Iraq no longer had WMD. The only way to do that after 12 years of failure, was through military force.

"In the '90s the inspectors did find some WMD and destroyed them."

Most of the WMD that was found in the 1990s was found because of those that escaped Iraq and were able to provide what information they knew. Then Saddam had to agree to give them up and not prevent the inspectors from finding and destroying them. At any moment, a single platoon of Republican guard units could put the work of the UN inspectors to a hault. Thats something that does not happen now because the Republican Guard no longer exists. Saddam's goal in the 1990s was to turn over a certain portion of his WMD in order to full the world that he had complied 100% there by getting sanctions lifted. Saddam never had any intent of complying which is why peaceful UN inspections could never work, as 12 years of these games proved. Only through military force, can an uncooperative dictator with a large military, be disarmed of WMD he is unwilling to give up and is ready to fight for.

Dreadsox has repeatedly stated what he considers NOT to be a "real coalition".

"Three English-speaking countries does not represent a credible coalition for this kind of operation."

Because their English speaking?

"The French and Germans did participate in the operation of disarming Iraq. However, they did not consider a war a necessary option at that moment. But with their commitment to disarmament they should not be suddenly sidelined by a government who might do everything to prove the world that there were WMD."

The French and the Germans were committed to a plan that had failed to disarm Iraq after 12 years! They were committed to a plan that was a failure. The only reason one would pursue a path of failure is ignorance or the fact that they do not desire the goal.

The US governments goal is not to prove that there are WMDs but to insure that Iraq has no WMDs.

Colin Powell has already correctly stated that it was "not incubment upon the USA to prove that Iraq had WMDs, it was incubment upon Iraq to prove that they did not have WMDs. Thats what Iraq agreed to in the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire agreement.

"And I don't want countries that think that their will is the will of the world compromise the security in a region and the viability of an organisation that tries to keep the world together peacefully. That's not arrogance, but a matter of national security, the security of MY country."

The USA has done more for the security and stability of the Gulf Region and the rest of the world then the United Nations has done in its entire history.

The USA cares deeply for the security of YOUR country. Thousands of US soldiers died and suffered for it. Billions were spent during the Cold War to prevent Soviet tanks from rolling through it, or turning it into a nuclear waste land.

Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way

Posts: 2,432

Local Time: 03:13 AM

Quote:

Bush Says It Will Take Time to Find Iraq's Banned ArmsBy DAVID E. SANGER

RAWFORD, Tex., May 3 — With his administration under growing international pressure to find evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, President Bush told reporters today that "we'll find them," but cautioned that it would take some time because, he said, Mr. Hussein spent so many years hiding his stockpiles.

Mr. Bush's comments came after his senior aides, in interviews in recent days, had begun to back away from their prewar claims that Mr. Hussein had an arsenal that was loaded and ready to fire. They now contend that he developed what they call a "just in time" production strategy for his weapons, hiding chemical precursors that could be quickly loaded into empty artillery shells or short-range missiles.

But no evidence has been found that he did so, and Mr. Bush's comments reflected a growing concern in the administration that opponents of the war would claim that the United States exaggerated the evidence against Iraq in order to justify an attack that was intended to depose Mr. Hussein.

Referring to the growing number of Iraqi scientists and military officials now in custody, the president made it clear that he thought they would soon lead American forces to Mr. Hussein's weapons stores. "It may not be the aces, kings and queens and jacks that do the talking," he said, referring to the Iraqi officials whose faces have been placed on playing cards to help allied troops identify them. "It may be those carrying the water for the aces, kings, queens and jacks."

Speaking on his ranch this morning with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, Mr. Bush appeared still ebullient after his two-day swing through California. On the trip, he declared an end to the military phase of the war in a made-for-television speech to the 5,000 crew members of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln off shore in the Pacific.

His aides describe that speech on Thursday as one of the best-staged events of his presidency. They are already discussing how clips of Mr. Bush in a flight jump suit, surrounded by returning troops, can be used in the 2004 re-election campaign....

Originally posted by STING2 "Your comment about countries not wanting to find WMD is baseless."

My comment is based on the fact that many countries in the UN were unwilling to do what was necessary to insure that Iraq no longer had WMD. The only way to do that after 12 years of failure, was through military force.

In the end I think you and I will always disagree what was necessary at this point (with me being of the opinion that war wasn't necessary... yet). Other countries also disagree with this. But that does not mean that they were unwilling to disarm Iraq!

Quote:

Most of the WMD that was found in the 1990s was found because of those that escaped Iraq and were able to provide what information they knew. Then Saddam had to agree to give them up and not prevent the inspectors from finding and destroying them. At any moment, a single platoon of Republican guard units could put the work of the UN inspectors to a hault. Thats something that does not happen now because the Republican Guard no longer exists. Saddam's goal in the 1990s was to turn over a certain portion of his WMD in order to full the world that he had complied 100% there by getting sanctions lifted. Saddam never had any intent of complying which is why peaceful UN inspections could never work, as 12 years of these games proved. Only through military force, can an uncooperative dictator with a large military, be disarmed of WMD he is unwilling to give up and is ready to fight for.

OK, so the Republican Guard is no more. This means they cannot block inspections anymore. So why not let the UN inspectors back in? They won't be obstructed by Iraq anymore. The military force removed the uncooperative dictator. Now, let the UN specialists look for those WMD.

Quote:

"Three English-speaking countries does not represent a credible coalition for this kind of operation."

Because their English speaking?

I don't know. But I think it is telling that you can describe this 'coalition' so easily...

Quote:

"The French and Germans did participate in the operation of disarming Iraq. However, they did not consider a war a necessary option at that moment. But with their commitment to disarmament they should not be suddenly sidelined by a government who might do everything to prove the world that there were WMD."

The French and the Germans were committed to a plan that had failed to disarm Iraq after 12 years! They were committed to a plan that was a failure. The only reason one would pursue a path of failure is ignorance or the fact that they do not desire the goal.

You are saying that it is a failure and you make the assumption that France and Germany only supported that plan because they are stupid or because they want to obstruct the disarmament. I say they disagreed with the war because they didn't think a war was necessary yet. They know what it's like when a war is fought on one's own ground, a fact we are especially reminded of these days (tomorrow is Liberation Day here in the Netherlands as 58 years ago our country was freed from Nazi-Germany and I just got back from a war memorial service). Even today that war that ended 58 years ago has a profound influence on many people living here, in our relations with Germany, in what we wish upon other countries. One of these things is that we do not want another country be dragged into war.

Quote:

The US governments goal is not to prove that there are WMDs but to insure that Iraq has no WMDs.

Colin Powell has already correctly stated that it was "not incubment upon the USA to prove that Iraq had WMDs, it was incubment upon Iraq to prove that they did not have WMDs. Thats what Iraq agreed to in the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire agreement.

According to your opinion Iraq did not prove sufficiently to the UN that it did not have any WMD, that was the whole reason behind this war. Why then cannot the UN insure that Iraq does not have any WMDs?

Quote:

The USA has done more for the security and stability of the Gulf Region and the rest of the world then the United Nations has done in its entire history.

Opinions differ about it. I don't want to drag this thread into the Palestine/Israel thread in this forum, but I do want to say I do not agree with the unconditional support of the USA to Israel. BTW, many resolutions about the stability of the Gulf Region were blocked by veto votes. Sometimes by the USA, sometimes by other countries (mainly Russia).

Quote:

The USA cares deeply for the security of YOUR country. Thousands of US soldiers died and suffered for it. Billions were spent during the Cold War to prevent Soviet tanks from rolling through it, or turning it into a nuclear waste land.

Yes, the USA (and Canada) did a tremendous job in WWII. There is still a gratitude for that and it is the reason I can type freely what I want at this moment. But I think that there is a big difference between US foreign policy 50 years ago and the US foreign policy today (of the last 3 years that is).

"In the end I think you and I will always disagree what was necessary at this point (with me being of the opinion that war wasn't necessary... yet). Other countries also disagree with this. But that does not mean that they were unwilling to disarm Iraq!"

Please tell what Saddam did in the preceding months that was different than anything he had done in the past 12 years and would prove that he was willing to cooperate 100%. Realize the French, German plan only works if Saddam is willing to cooperate. 12 years is way to long to play Saddams game. It must leave a bitter taste in the mouth of Europeans who supported continued inspections, that under their plan, Saddam would continue in power for months or years, during which time tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would be tortured and murdered, and at the end of that time, their plan would of failed because Saddam had no intention of ever cooperating 100%.

"OK, so the Republican Guard is no more. This means they cannot block inspections anymore. So why not let the UN inspectors back in? They won't be obstructed by Iraq anymore. The military force removed the uncooperative dictator. Now, let the UN specialists look for those WMD."

The US military has inspectors and specialist that are in my view superior to the collective UN team. They are already there on the ground in engaged in the task of ensuring with military force if necessary that Iraq is disarmed of its WMD. Unarmed Peaceful inspection process that required cooperation from the Iraqi government is OVER. Compliance with military force is the current phase and is not over. It would be a mistake and a risk, to let a process that failed for 12 years resume. The US, British and Australian military specialist are more than capable for the task. Inviting countries with different motives other than ensuring that Iraq is 100% disarmed, would be unhelpful and a risk from a security point of view.

"But I think it is telling that you can describe this 'coalition' so easily..."

How many countries were in the coalition that occupied Germany after World War II? Japan? I'm talking troops on the ground. The coalition that supported the use of force against Iraq is composed of nearly 50 countries if you include those without troops on the Ground.

"You are saying that it is a failure and you make the assumption that France and Germany only supported that plan because they are stupid or because they want to obstruct the disarmament. I say they disagreed with the war because they didn't think a war was necessary yet."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the UN inspectors after 12 years succeed in ensuring that Saddam had been disarmed 100%? Nope, they failed.

If war was not necessary yet, then when? When do you think Saddam would have had a "change of heart" and decided to cooperate fully since he had not for the preceding 12 years? Its only with Saddam's cooperation that the German and French proposals would ever work.

It does not take 12 years to disarm a country if the country is cooperating. Without cooperation, full disarmament of that country through peaceful inspections is IMPOSSIBLE. Kazahstan, Ukraine, Belarus, and South Africa were all disarmed in less than a year. Thats because they cooperated.

For your plan to work, Saddam had to cooperate. For 12 years he did not cooperate. When and why do you think he would of cooperated in the future? What would be the costs several years down the road if you finally admit your plan has failed and that military force is needed to disarm Iraq, but Iraq is now armed with nuclear weapons. What would be the costs of attacking a nuclear armed Saddam? Its not like Biological or Chemical weapons that the US military can defend itself successfully from.

"They know what it's like when a war is fought on one's own ground, a fact we are especially reminded of these days (tomorrow is Liberation Day here in the Netherlands as 58 years ago our country was freed from Nazi-Germany and I just got back from a war memorial service). Even today that war that ended 58 years ago has a profound influence on many people living here, in our relations with Germany, in what we wish upon other countries. One of these things is that we do not want another country be dragged into war."

There is a place 30 miles south of where I live called Gettysburg. There is a place called Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. There were a couple of towers called the World Trade Center in New York City. Americans know what its like to have a war on their doorstep as well. The difference with many Europeans is what we have learned is that appeasement and Isolationism are recipes for foreign policy disaster.

After being devasted in World War I, Europe let Hitler rise to power, rearm and kill 5 times as many people that were murdered in World War I. Europe repeats the mistakes that led to World War II, the USA has vowed never to repeat them which is why there has not been a World War III of any type, why wars in Bosnia and Kosovo are over, why South Korea is independent and prosperous country today, why Saddam is out of power and the Iraqi people liberated of his oppression while the rest of the world will never have to suffer his aggression or WMD again, Why Afghanistan has the first real chance of forming a truely stable democratic government and country side for the first time in 6,000 years of history, why there are more democracy's on the planet than at any other time in human history!

"According to your opinion Iraq did not prove sufficiently to the UN that it did not have any WMD, that was the whole reason behind this war. Why then cannot the UN insure that Iraq does not have any WMDs?"

Is it your opinion that Iraq successfully complied with all its resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN?

The United Nations colectively agrees that Iraq did not prove sufficiently that it no longer had WMD. It is hardly my opinion alone.

The UN already has member states with military forces in Iraq ensuring that Saddam is disarmed following Iraq's failure to cooperate with the peaceful disarmament process that ended months ago.

"Opinions differ about it. I don't want to drag this thread into the Palestine/Israel thread in this forum, but I do want to say I do not agree with the unconditional support of the USA to Israel. BTW, many resolutions about the stability of the Gulf Region were blocked by veto votes. Sometimes by the USA, sometimes by other countries (mainly Russia)."

I'm talking about who has spent the most BLOOD and money to ensure the world is safe and secure since World War II.

"Yes, the USA (and Canada) did a tremendous job in WWII. There is still a gratitude for that and it is the reason I can type freely what I want at this moment. But I think that there is a big difference between US foreign policy 50 years ago and the US foreign policy today (of the last 3 years that is)."

I'd say there is a difference between US Foreign Policy prior to World War II and after World War II. The USA has learned from the failures of Isolationism and Appeasement. On the Appeasement side, many in Europe keep repeating those mistakes.

Sting for the record, I outlined what I thought a vaild coalition was months ago, and you disagreed with me then so what is the point? I have not changed my opinion. The US takes 50 nations as part of the coalition, but really it is three doing the job that needed to be done.

As to the fact that you have more faith in the US Inspectors, that I can agree with you on. However, if reporters could be embedded, then why can't UN inspectors be embedded to add legitimacy to the "suspect world" I have never said, hand over the operation to them. I just want them allowed into Iraq with our inspection teams.

Was this war with Iraq and the current occupation of Iraq sponsored by the UN? If it was, why isn't the UN in charge of the occupation, and rebuilding of this country?

"Sting for the record, I outlined what I thought a vaild coalition was months ago, and you disagreed with me then so what is the point? I have not changed my opinion. The US takes 50 nations as part of the coalition, but really it is three doing the job that needed to be done."

You''ll have to refresh my memory on a couple of months ago. I only remember you saying recently that you did not have a number on who should be a part of coalition.

Let me ask you this. Do you feel that the four countries that occupied Germany following World War II was not a sufficiant coalition? If four countries worked for Germany, why is three insufficient for Iraq?

"However, if reporters could be embedded, then why can't UN inspectors be embedded to add legitimacy to the "suspect world" I have never said, hand over the operation to them. I just want them allowed into Iraq with our inspection teams."

First, you don't want people working on the operation who could potentially have different motives and reasons to hide or cover up things. If their just there like reporters then that is all they are, reporters. Reporters are not technically involved in any operations. You'd essentially be sending a trained inspector to do the job of a reporter. There are already international reporters all over Iraq, so I really don't see the point.

"Was this war with Iraq and the current occupation of Iraq sponsored by the UN? If it was, why isn't the UN in charge of the occupation, and rebuilding of this country?"

Yes. It is. But there were only 3 member states that actually elected to be involved in the military operation to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of WMD and related operations. The military operation to ensure Iraq is disarmed is not over.

Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way

Posts: 2,432

Local Time: 03:13 AM

Quote:

New York Times, May 6, 2003 Missing in Action: TruthBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

When I raised the Mystery of the Missing W.M.D. recently, hawks fired barrages of reproachful e-mail at me. The gist was: "You *&#*! Who cares if we never find weapons of mass destruction, because we've liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant."

But it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."

I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

Let's fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax, and proof of close ties with Al Qaeda. Those are the things that President Bush or his aides suggested Iraq might have, and I don't want to believe that top administration officials tried to win support for the war with a campaign of wholesale deceit.

Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

"It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

Another example is the abuse of intelligence from Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of Iraq's biological weapons program until his defection in 1995. Top British and American officials kept citing information from Mr. Kamel as evidence of a huge secret Iraqi program, even though Mr. Kamel had actually emphasized that Iraq had mostly given up its W.M.D. program in the early 1990's. Glen Rangwala, a British Iraq expert, says the transcript of Mr. Kamel's debriefing was leaked because insiders resented the way politicians were misleading the public.

Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle Eastern affairs in the Defense Intelligence Agency, says that he hears from those still in the intelligence world that when experts wrote reports that were skeptical about Iraq's W.M.D., "they were encouraged to think it over again."

"In this administration, the pressure to get product `right' is coming out of O.S.D. [the Office of the Secretary of Defense]," Mr. Lang said. He added that intelligence experts had cautioned that Iraqis would not necessarily line up to cheer U.S. troops and that the Shiite clergy could be a problem. "The guys who tried to tell them that came to understand that this advice was not welcome," he said.

"The intelligence that our officials was given regarding W.M.D. was either defective or manipulated," Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico noted. Another senator is even more blunt and, sadly, exactly right: "Intelligence was manipulated."

The C.I.A. was terribly damaged when William Casey, its director in the Reagan era, manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the Soviet threat in Central America to whip up support for Ronald Reagan's policies. Now something is again rotten in the state of Spookdom.

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase pre liberation...
let's give the inspecters more time! let's give the inspecters more time! give them months if they need it! years even! give the inspecters more time!

post libertation...
we want answers now! where are they?! where are they?! where are they?! you don't need any more time! we want answers now!

I think a lot of it comes from the fact that the Bush administration has claimed time and time again that they have so much intelligence telling them what and where these items are. I think the longer it takes and by what means will really play a role on the legitimacy of Bush and his administration. I've even heard a big portion of the pro-war side getting impatient. A lot of them supported this war based on faith that Bush knew what he was talking about. I hope they find them, but I won't be suprised if they don't.

i too believe that finding these WMD's are vital. If it turns out they weren't there, it would be one of the biggest intellegence failures of all time, and I would expect and hope that heads would roll at the CIA. But I'm still confident that these weapons are there. Saddam managed to hide thousands of bodies in mass graves that are now being uncovered by US troops, with bodies that have been dead for no longer than a month. I'm sure with the time they had to hide the WMD's, they did a much better job than just tossin' some dirt on top of 'em. I'm going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt... say 2-3 months, to find where these things are, or at the very least find out what happened to them. After that, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and more importantly the CIA are going to have to start providing me with some answers.
My only fear is that in the months of bickering and delaying in the UN gave the Iraqis time to ship these chemicals out of the country...

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase pre liberation...
let's give the inspecters more time! let's give the inspecters more time! give them months if they need it! years even! give the inspecters more time!

post libertation...
we want answers now! where are they?! where are they?! where are they?! you don't need any more time! we want answers now!

I think there are really two reasons for that:

Firstly, the claim before the war was that weapons inspectors had been unsuccessful because of obstruction by Iraqi officials. After the war those officials are presumably no longer able to interfere in inspections, so that explanation no longer holds water.

Secondly, the US and UK claimed to have evidence before the war of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and where they could be found. Therefore it seems somewhat suspicious that after the war they're unable to put this knowledge into practice and find the weapons quickly.

Firstly, the claim before the war was that weapons inspectors had been unsuccessful because of obstruction by Iraqi officials. After the war those officials are presumably no longer able to interfere in inspections, so that explanation no longer holds water.

Secondly, the US and UK claimed to have evidence before the war of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and where they could be found. Therefore it seems somewhat suspicious that after the war they're unable to put this knowledge into practice and find the weapons quickly.

they claimed to have evidence of their existance, not of their exact location. if they knew where they could be found, one would think they would have told somebody that. it sure would have helped the US' image heading into the war.
Iraq is the size of California, with millions of potential hiding places. Believe me... I'm with you. If it turns out there weren't any WMDs, I want heads to roll in the CIA. But I'm willing to give them a little more than a week or two to try and dig them up. 2 months from now? i'll be singing the same tune you are... but let's just wait and see.

they claimed to have evidence of their existance, not of their exact location. if they knew where they could be found, one would think they would have told somebody that.

Actually there were several reports that stated they had locations. They claimed to be in trucks hidden in suburban areas. Not exact locations, yet it was enough for them to go to the UN about. Also when reports came out that chemical agents and weapons were found, which all then later were proven to be false, the reports said that these were locations that there intelligence lead them to. One of the very last reports I read said they had searched 12 of their top 20 leads as far as location, and this was a couple of weeks ago.

Like I said nothing exact, but it's not like they are just roaming from one building to the other. They claim they have satellite pics, they have a list of leads...it all stinks to me. I think it's embarassing that we're suppose to have one of the highest most elite intelligence gathering services in the world and this is what we have to show. And this is what we brought to the table as a reason to go to war.

Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way

Posts: 2,432

Local Time: 03:13 AM

Everything exact they had turned out to be a fake.
and i'm unsure that it was bad work of the CIA it could be that the ones who wanted the war just said that they had CIA-informations like Mr Blair who didn't like what his secret service said so i prefered to download a "Secret Service document" from the internet

Everyone here is missing the point! This list of WMD in the article Klaus recently posted came from the last report of UN inspectors in 1998. Even Iraq admitted that it had this material.

It is not incumbent on the United States to prove that Iraq still has 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax.

It is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they no longer have the above lists of weapons. Thats how the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement was written. Iraq failed to prove to the world where or what happened to the above WMD. Thats why operation Iraqi Freedom was launched. It was launched to ENSURE that Iraq no longer has WMD. When and if WMD material is found, it will be taken and destroyed, mission accomplished. If no WMD is found, the USA will ensure that the future Iraqi military and government does not possess the missing WMD, mission accomplished!

Fizzing,

"Firstly, the claim before the war was that weapons inspectors had been unsuccessful because of obstruction by Iraqi officials. After the war those officials are presumably no longer able to interfere in inspections, so that explanation no longer holds water."

Thats not true at all! Iraq had four years to hide and perfect its ability to hide WMD. In addition, what do you think Iraq was hiding on countless occasions when it blocked the UN inspectors from looking at certain buildings and places back in the 1990s? Why did Iraq not let the inspectors back in after 1998 if they had nothing to hide? Only under the threat of force in 2002 did they let them in. This after four years in which Iraq perfected its ability to hide such weapons.

"Secondly, the US and UK claimed to have evidence before the war of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and where they could be found. Therefore it seems somewhat suspicious that after the war they're unable to put this knowledge into practice and find the weapons quickly."

Do you think the Iraqi's were dumb enough not to move such WMD around especially once the war started?

The UN, Iraq, and the USA all agree that Iraq did have thousands tons of Anthrax and shells to deliver them in 1998! There are only two possibilities:

Iraq hid the weapons intact somewhere in the vast territory of Iraq.

Iraq destroyed as much of the weapons as it could and buried the evidence of the destruction somewhere in the vast territory of Iraq.

Either way, Iraq failed to give up the WMD everyone agrees it had in 1998 or show the evidence of its destruction. This is a violation of Iraq's requirments under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and is the authorization for the current war in Iraq. Its not incumbent upon any member state of the UN to prove Iraq has WMD, it was only incumbent upon Iraq to prove that. Now that the Iraqi military and government have been overthrown, it is only incumbent upon the member states of the UN involved in the operation to ensure that Iraq no longer has the WMD.

To actually find all the WMD will be a long tasks. Just think about it. If I took a large house hold appliance from your house and buried it in a 50 foot hole somewhere in the United Kingdom, how long do you think it would take you to find it? Every square foot of all of the United Kingdom is a place where it could be buried. It could be 2 miles north of Belfast, or somewhere near Giants Causeway. It could be on the Isle of Sky or under a building in the Suburbs of London. Think about it.

Saddam most likely decided that his Chemical and Biological Weapons were effective against civlians, they would be ineffective against the US military. Saddam probably destroyed much of his stockpile once Bush started to ratchet up the pressure in the Summer and Fall of 2002. A small amount including some production facilities were kept intact so that production could be restarted once a possible round of UN inspections came in and then left having found nothing.

If this is indeed what happened, it will probably take decades to find the destroyed WMD which was probably widely dispersed and buried deep in the vast deserts of Iraq. As for production facilities and scientists, hopefully these things will be easier to find.

Regardless of where Saddam hid his WMD or the remains of his WMD, he can no longer use it. Saddams regime has been effectively disarmed, because Saddams regime no longer exists.